Why would Obama, the ‘first gay president,’ need to pupate?

Newsweek has called President Obama ‘the first gay president.’ If that’s true, why would he have to pupate like some sort of strange insect from anti-gay larva into a gay-friendly butterfly?

Newsweek has declared Barack Obama “The first gay president.” Really? How on earth could a straight man, who describes his metamorphosis on the subject of gay marriage as if he was some larval form of insect that needed to pupate, earn such a distinction? Barack Obama, who “evolved” over the course of decades into “the first gay president,” is most certainly not the first gay president.

Any serious reporter needs to ask the president one question: “Do you believe gay sex is a sin?” If his answer is “yes,” then someone needs to ask Newsweek how they came to the conclusion that a gay president could look at gay men and have one of the first thoughts that swirls though his head be ‘sinner.’

If the answer is “no,” then he has some more explaining to do to the black community, particularly the pastors he relies on for support. In fact, a good reporter would also ask President Obama another question: Your campaign released an attack ad on Mitt Romney that labeled him as “backwards” for his stance on gay marriage — one that you held only days ago. If Mitt Romney is “backwards,” does that also mean that the segments of the black community that feel the same way are”backwards”?

If the president and the media want to talk about how great he is on gay rights, let’s really have a conversation. We can start with the president’s own words:

“I’ve been going through an evolution on this issue. … I hesitated on gay marriage in part because I thought civil unions would be sufficient … and I was sensitive to the fact that for a lot of people the word ‘marriage’ was something that evokes very powerful traditions and religious beliefs and so forth. But I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I talked to friends and family and neighbors — when I think about members of my own staff who are incredibly committed in monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together — … at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”

What is marriage, Mr. President? Define marriage. Is marriage just some sort of formal recognition that two people love each other and want to be together for the rest of their lives, or is it something more? Why does the institution exist? Why was this particular union — one between a man and a woman — codified and held in such high esteem across so many cultures for so many generations? What is it about such a union that makes its traditional definition so important to so many societies?

The president never talks about that, you’ll notice. Worse, Robin Roberts is such a hack that she never even bothers to ask the president to explain in more detail why marriage “evokes very powerful traditions and religious beliefs.” She doesn’t do that because to dissect what marriage really means would then expose the truth: To change the definition of marriage is to destroy the institution of marriage, since the primary purpose is to make sacrosanct the bond between a man and a woman. The reason for that is because only a man and a woman can come together to form new life, and the healthiest environment for that new life is for it to be in a loving, caring relationship with its biological mother and father.

That is a fact that cuts across religions and cultures. You can be an atheist and the same truth holds true. That is the ideal. That is what we should all aim for, and it is important enough that an institution was created to honor and encourage and nurture it. Too mess with that equation is to open a Pandora’s Box of social ills, and for proof we need to look no further than the welfare state and the decimation of the family unit since President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society.

You are not the first gay president, Mr. Obama. You never were and you never will be.

Update: Newsweek has an alternate cover. Head on over to Hotair to check out their response.

Related

I'm a former Army guy who believes success comes through hard work, honesty, optimism, and perseverance.
I believe seeing yourself as a victim creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. I believe in God. I'm a USC Trojan with an MA in Political Science from American University.

Post navigation

19 comments

“…[Marriage is] codified and held in such high esteem across so many cultures for so many generations?”

Whoa, Doug. You’re using the newest, romantic, 21-century “evolved” definition of marriage. The one where the Judeo-Christian god (or other god) creates a beautiful covenant between a man and a woman when they choose freely to wed.

There’s a problem with that. One doesn’t have to look too far back to see the origins of marriage–one happily performed by religious institutions throughout the ages–one that couldn’t be described as anything but a chattel exchange. Hell, most ceremonies dropped the “obey” portion only in the past few years.

The fact is, the institution of marriage evolved into the romantic ideal it is today, one where the woman (usually) is an equal partner and not a trade for a head of cattle, two goats, and a chicken dowry. Christians tend to forget the origins of this practice, one that had nothing to do with love, because it’s rather uncomfortable and incongruent with people’s desires in the modern age.

Sure, Obama flip-flopped and probably only because Biden gaffed, but forgetting its origins when defining it really ignores the fact that it has evolved over time and it is evolving again. You’re giving it the modern, romanticized treatment, certainly not the historical one. So it’s impossible to say that marraige has not evolved. And it is evolving further.

“…[Marriage is] codified and held in such high esteem across so many cultures for so many generations?”

That isn’t a Christian definition. Even if it was, Christianity has been around for quite some time, and its practices have been rather useful for society (despite what men of the Christopher Hitchens mentality argue).

Even your description of women as “chattel” is a bit unfair, when you consider that birth control and contraceptives didn’t always exist, nor did modern technology … and that until recently raising a household was grueling, hard work. While certain practices might seem cruel and unusual to our modern eyes, not all the customs that we turn our noses at today existed merely as a means to hold women back. And, despite what our liberal professors might tell us (e.g., sex is a social construct), there are differences between men and women.

The “obey” jab means nothing to me. I don’t feel like getting into a biblical debate, but your understanding of the relationship between a Christian husband and wife is probably limited if that’s the line of attack you want to go with. Instead of talking to the Christians Bill Maher would direct you to, perhaps you should find some smart ones to attend bible study with.

I stand by what I wrote:

“Is marriage just some sort of formal recognition that two people love each other and want to be together for the rest of their lives, or is it something more? … [Only] a man and a woman can come together to form new life, and the healthiest environment for that new life is for it to be in a loving, caring relationship with its biological mother and father.”

This statement has nothing to do with religion, in and of itself. An institution can be built around it without adhering to Christian beliefs. The president (and I’m assuming you), would rather not acknowledge it, because once you build an institution around such an idea it means it’s something only straight people can do as a function of biology. That isn’t bigoted — that’s a fact. I’m sorry if that hurts some feelings out there, but that’s the truth.

So… throughout much of civilization, women were considered property, marriages were arranged, and the bride’s and groom’s family patriarch generally handled things. The romantic notions you are retroactively applying to history didn’t exist until a few centuries ago, long after both bibles were written. So… modern marriage is much different than even a few hundred years ago much less a few thousand. And it will continue to evolve.

Not sure why you’re arguing against atheists and atheism, liberal college professors, misguided classifications of sexual congress, and with other distractions when I mentioned the history and evolution of marriage. Was what I wrote about Christian churches being a-okay with performing ceremonies for arranged marriages?

I know you thought you were being funny with the Maher bit, but you couldn’t be more wrong. Atheist generally tend to know more about religion that Christians.

I was talking about this with my wife this weekend, and I basically said that just because that statement hurts someone’s feelings it doesn’t mean I have to feel bad about it or I should let anyone paint me as a bigot. I’m not. I don’t hate anyone. I treat people with dignity and respect. I don’t bear anyone ill will.

“MeAgain” has also apparently not read Mark 10:8. If I treated my wife as “chattel” wouldn’t I be treating myself as chattel? That would be strange…

I have read the old testament and new testament. What you aren’t getting is the biblical mandate to treat your spouse well has nothing to do with how you got married in the first place. They aren’t mutually exclusive. The bible can easily tell you to love a spouse that your father picked for you.

You ignored my statement about customs of the past, many of which may seem ridiculous or cruel or weird to us … but that may have been necessary given some of the realities of the world our ancestors lived in.

Regardless, as always you ignore the key point, which is that gay marriage advocates (like 2012 Obama) don’t want to have an honest and open discussion about what marriage means, because the idea that an institution should be created around something they can’t do as a function of biology prevents them from demonizing their opponents.

I did ignore it because you tossed out a generality that sounded dangerously close to historical relativism. The punishment of stoning an adulteress to death was just as barbaric and wrong in Biblical times as it is in the modern Middle East. It was no more “necessary for the times” than patriarchy-arranged marriages. We’re not talking about stupid shit like not eating pork or wearing clothes woven from different fibers, we’re talking about human and civil rights, and on a more basic level, personal freedom. Those are more universal truths that do not change with the ages.

I didn’t ignore your central point. I wholeheartedly reject your definition of what marriage “means.” What you fail to grasp is what marriage means to our government, which is at the innermost core of this debate.

Two people get a civil license and get married. This license grants you certain statuses and rights in regards to another person. I don’t know about your state, but in mine, religion has nothing to do with the State’s definition. Show ID, pay a fee, have a ceremony of some sort, meet a few legal requirements and, boom, you’re hitched. The state doesn’t require religious beliefs or the “sanctity of marriage,” or anything sentimental like love.

You’re right, gay marriage advocates don’t want to have an open and honest discussion about what marriage means to YOU and your church. If you believe that marriage has greater meaning, one anointed with a deep spiritual connection between a man and a woman, that’s perfectly okay. If your church doesn’t want to marry gays, that’s perfectly okay too. I fully support your church’s rights under our nation’s laws to exclude whomever they chose and for your priest to deliver sermons condemning homosexuality.

But gays aren’t asking to be married in your church, they’re asking to be married in the eyes of the State in which they live and be afforded all the legal rights and privileges of a married couple. GAYS’ MARITAL STATUS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU, YOUR CHURCH, OR YOUR GOD.

And “demonizing their opponents.” So, now you’re the victim? Your bible demonizes *them* and you use its teachings as a basis to deny them a civil contract that has nothing to do with religion. Who is limiting who?

I agree with your analogy, but scratch my head how it has anything to do with Jim’s crude “go get ’em Doug” replies. Hell, I’m pro-2nd Amendment and I find his constant gun analogies completely asinine. This guy’s in school for creative writing and that’s all he can do?

Hi Susan. Thanks for the comment. I hope it didn’t come across as though I don’t believe single parent homes can raise good kids. Plenty of hard working dads and moms (like yourself) do that every day. However, as I said, the repercussions of the Great Society programs decimated the family unit in many low income areas … and we’ve seen how that has played out.

People don’t like [that the gay lifestyle] is forced down the throats of every American, regardless of their own beliefs. I wouldn’t have a problem with them getting married if they kept their business to themselves. As long as they march on the streets and throw it in my face I’ll be voting against it.